User talk:Cleanse/Archive 4
This is an archive, not a talk page. The following conversations are preserved for posterity's sake only. If you have any new comments, please add them to my talk page. Thanks! Hello and thank you I stumbled across Memory Alpha quite by accident and am happy to have found this community. Being a Star Trek Fan as far back as I won't say. I enjoy the stories and the vision of Gene Rodenberry. It is my sincerest wish that the philosophy he envisioned can be a reality. As to contributing, I would start by reading the documents that were posted in the message you sent, and then see what I can contribute from there. I do not just edit for the sake of editing. So, thank you for welcoming me to MA. please feel free to send messages or ask questions as you like. Sister Ida The Doctor Oh, my apologies, it wasn't like that the last time I was here. I shall make a note of it in the future. Amusingly enough, I made that edit out of habit because I'd just come from the Doctor Who Wiki, where the opposite rule is in effect for their "the Doctor". --Captain J 03:35, May 3, 2010 (UTC) :No problem. It's a trivial point but we do like consistency. ;-) I didn't follow it closely but there was a lot of debate on that point in the past before finally settling on the capitalized version and putting it into the guidelines.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC) Ionite Wow...I can't believe I missed that. Thanks. — Morder (talk) 07:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC) :Heh, no problem. The "Hyundite" thing was bugging me too.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 08:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Re:IAMD Citations I'm only about halfway through adding info from the episode's audio commentary, but I've added the necessary citations, as you requested. --Defiant 11:09, May 13, 2010 (UTC) :No problem, mate! :) --Defiant 01:59, May 14, 2010 (UTC) (don't need a list for one appearance) Thank you for your edit on my edits...But I think removing the appearances even if it is only one is counterproductive...Why, well I think a uniform structure is helpful for the casual visitor (you and I know that there was only one appearance, but that doesn't hold true for the casual visitor)...Don't get me wrong, I'll will not fight this, but I think MA is well served with a consistent structure...Sennim 00:35, May 16, 2010 (UTC) :I think we've been pretty consistent in not having appearances lists of one entry. These are designed for longer articles (e.g. or Nog) where it helps to have a summary at the end of exactly when the ship/character/whatever appeared. For shorter, single-appearance items like the D'Arsay archive, there's a link in the text to the episode directly above the background section, so an appearances list is rather redundant. :As for making it clear that it only appeared once; this is pretty much implied by the fact that there is only one episode citation in the text, and no reference to further encounters with the archive.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:14, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for your input...I do see your point as it is mine, I just put myself in the place of the casual visitor..your citation this is pretty much implied by the fact that there is only one episode citation in the text is exactly what I had in mind...we know this to be true, but not the casual visitor...anyway, it is of no consequence, it was just some musings on my part, don't take any offence...Keep up the good work--Sennim 01:50, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Ensign Rager, USS Jenolen etc. I contributed the factoid about Ensign Rager. How do I know? I was there. I helped out with Holodiction (was it 1990?), and met Ron Moore & the other guests. Though I was not present at the nightspot, I was told about it the next day. Ron thought that "rager" was a quaint appellation. The 3 facts-to-be (Jenolan, Sydney-class & Rager) were documented in print in the Astrex newsletter a few months later, when Ron was writing the episode, based on a phone conversation with or thank-you letter (this was pre-email) from Ron to one of the organisers. :Ok, thanks for the info. We just get a lot of background information copied without attribution from books, websites etc. and I thought it might be the case here. Sorry about that. :Citing a personal account is a bit problematic, but we could cite the facts to the Astrex newsletter on the page. If you have any additional details on the newsletter that'd be great, if not no worries. Thanks again for your contribution and the additional insight. :-)– Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:46, May 29, 2010 (UTC) No Offense taken; I've done enough of my own ST research to know how much stuff is copied & recopied, sometimes from something that was just made up! I'll see if I can get more details on the newsletter. POV Policy Inquiry In regards to recent background info provided, I tried as best I could to keep it relative to the entry included on the accompanying page. It was intended for informational purposes from a production POV and I apologize if any irrelevance was implied. A bit confusing, I must say. Anyhow, thank you for your assistance. Snelfu 09:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :The Mission: Impossible page is about the mention of the series inside the Star Trek universe. The sidebar breaks this point of view; it contains information that was never stated in-universe. :There is a section about connections between Mission: Impossible and Star Trek, but this is "background information" (separated by template) and not the main focus of the article. :For real-world information on the show beyond this, there's links to Wikipedia and IMDB. – Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Point well taken. Thanks again for that tidbit, sir. Snelfu 10:22, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Re: FA nomination for The 37's (episode) There's no need to apologize for the failed FA nomination for "The 37's", Cleanse. It's actually good, in a way, as it shows what the general MA community thought worked and what could be improved upon. I personally find that a useful guide as, in the case of that particular article, it's now established that the episode summary could do with more work. I don't bring my ego into the equation and my only motive is to benefit the MA community (as well as having the fun of writing articles, in the first place). But I imagine you likewise meant well by apologizing, so thanks for that; it was considerate of you! :) --Defiant 10:01, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :No problem. Keep up the good work. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:11, October 12, 2010 (UTC) Borg philosophy – Transhumanism "citation needed" tag Hi, Cleanse. I see you've added a "citation needed" tag in the Borg philosophy#Parallels to Transhumanism section. I'd really like to take care of it, but there are two problems: (1) that section was present before I started my revamp attempt to get the article in good shape, and (2) I am unsure what you mean needs citing. I'd like it if you'd respond to the discussion page under the relevant section but understand if you'd rather talk about it here. So do you mean the whole analogue to modern-day Transhumanist philosophy with the Borg needs clearer citation, or did you call for a citation for only that last sentence/assertion about how Transhumanists differ from the Borg (in one way) because they don't advocate for coercive tactics to achieve their ends (unlike the Borg)? I'm no expert on Transhumanism, but I have followed the debate (along with the so-called Singularity Event that's supposed to suddenly usher in a cybernetic humanity) in my electrical engineering magazines. And AFAIK, none of the Transhumanists are calling for forced conversion; at best, some just think it will unavoidably happen. There's a link to Wikipedia's Transhumanist philosophy article currently on the page, and I'd think that'd be enough to clarify to interested readers this critical difference from the Borg's method of violent, forced assimilation. But I think it'd be hard finding a quote that explicitly states this vis-á-vis the fictional Borg. I'm actually fine with removing most or all of the Transhumanism section. Maybe just a line or two with a link to wikipedia's article or an IEEE article. So, could you please clarify to me what you believe needs fixing? I'd be happy to do it; I'm just unsure what precisely you want. Thanks a lot! Best regards, --Cepstrum 15:26, October 21, 2010 (UTC) PS I'm taking such a keen interest in this because I really want to be involved with dramatically improving (I hope!) an article for my first time. PPS Again, I'd prefer a response in the appropriate section on the article's talk page, but here is fine, too. :) :I replied on the talk page.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 22:43, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Great. Thanks, Cleanse. I love what you've done to the article. I do have just a few remaining questions, so please stop by the talk page whenever it's convenient for you. I'd like to change one thing, and I have a question I threw out about Transhumanism philosophy postdating Hurley's time of Borg creation – I'm almost certain it didn't exist then, and even if it existed in some nascent form, I don't think it was yet known popularly. Best regards, --Cepstrum 15:10, October 22, 2010 (UTC) "test" template This template is being removed. Please use in future, and when using it, please ensure that you "subst" it into the page, such as: . Thanks. -- sulfur 13:47, December 10, 2010 (UTC) :No problem. Thanks for the heads-up.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:18, December 11, 2010 (UTC) Your edit to the Quad page you edited my contribution the the quad page, calling it complete speculation. I am Madkiller12345 and please can you respond with why it is innaproprieate and where I can put the post instead. (Madkiller12345 16:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)) :I responded on your talk page.--31dot 16:23, December 14, 2010 (UTC) ::31dot pretty much covered it. If we don't know, leave it blank. Quad could mean 4 bytes, but it could also mean 47 bytes or refer to some alien (to us in the 21st century) form of storing information. As stated on the page, it was not intended to reflect current computer memory.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 22:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC) "Archerite" bg edit Hey thanks, Cleanse! Your cleanup was very prudent: I don't know why I possibly thought adding that much extraneous material was necessary. Rats. I appreciate your swift intervention. 15:33, December 27, 2010 (UTC) Sources re Freiberger Hey again, Cleanse Thanks for supplying all that bg info/quotes! I'll incorporate them into the article, if you don't mind. (Revert as desired.) By the way, would you mind weighing-in on this discussion? I'm afraid no one other than the ever-vigilant, swift, and helpful Sulfer will respond to my query..... Though based on his knowledge of the community, I'm sure the answer he gave accurately represents the "mood/consensus" here; still, it'd be nice to have at least one other admin respond, even if it's just, "Sulfer's correct. ." ;-) 16:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC) How to further improve it/obtain reviews Btw, I wanted to reiterate my thanks to you for helping me flesh out the Freiberger article. As I mentioned on its talk page, I think it's a great example of MA at work: I looked for info on him, didn't find it, got it (thanks to you plus a little help from references at WP), and folded it into the now greatly-expanded article. I was almost thinking of nominating it for FA or at least Peer Review, if for only the way the collaborative process worked. It doubtless needs cleanup/copy-editing, and I'm not sure about the "other work" section. I've not yet been involved in a Featured Article process, but I've seen past ones. And after reviewing the criteria for an FA, I'm certain it doesn't qualify. So would nominating it be ridiculous/abusing the system, or would it be a chance to bring attention to it for further improvement? From what I understand, the Peer Review process doesn't really work in practice, which is unfortunate. And I don't think slapping another pna tag on it would be helpful, for there's nothing particularly wrong with it – it could just use general improvement. What's your take? I see these options: * Leaving it alone (probably the best, unfortunately) * Submitting it for Peer Review (which also unfortunately, would probably accomplish nothing) * Putting a pna tag on it (which is rather dubious: the only thing "needing attention" is that it's not anywhere close to "The Perfect Article") * Nominating it for FA status Just to be clear, I don't think the article, in its current form, is FA-material. But aside from nominating it for that, I don't see how else to draw attention to it so we could work to turn it into such. Perhaps a pna tag would be good after all, for I am positive it needs improving. It's not example of a great article or even one with extensive collaboration. (I think the Borg philosophy article, which you and I worked on, is a better one, but I'll broach that on its talk page, perhaps.) I'll do nothing until hearing from you, for I'm not a veteran and want to become a useful editor – not a nuisance. Perhaps I'm completely off-base here and should just [[Memory Alpha:Etiquette|'shut up and get off your talk page!']] (Feel free to tell me to do that.) 17:41, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :A peer review would probably be best out of those options. You definitely shouldn't nominate it for FA status if you don't believe it is ready. Nor should you put a PNA tag on an article that is "okay" or "good" – these tags should be used only on articles that are deficient in some way. :Whether peer reviews 'work' is up to the community. There's not anything really wrong with the process - it's just sometimes they fail to get enough comments. Something similar often happens to FA nominations actually, which is a shame. (Too often, nominations lapse due to insufficient votes, which should really never happen) It's up to you, me and other users to make sure we offer feedback. :In this particular case, I don't really have any more information, I'm afraid, but others might.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:49, December 31, 2010 (UTC)